Wikipedia talk:Do template the regulars

this is silly. Nobody ever suggested "regulars" should not be warned if they misbehave. this "essay" thus doesn't even address the point made at WP:DTTR. If there is any reason why templates should be used to admonish veteran editors, as opposed to civil comments customized to address the situation at hand, let such reasons be heard at the main WP:DTTR page. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Made it a redirect to the user essay. Should perhaps be deleted. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Template the regulars --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Bstone. It has transpired that there has been an mfd for this, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Template the regulars, upon which the page was userified. You are essentially recreating deleted content. Now unless you (a) deign to communicate on talk, or (b) you accept the essay is in userspace and edit it there, I will take this to mfd again. --dab (𒁳) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I love when people use italics when they are on a talk page. The point of this essay is to be a response to the very silly WP:DTTR. A few editors have worked on it and I am rather attached to its existence. If this essay is deleted then it makes perfect sense that WP:DTTR is also deleted/userspaced. Right? Bstone (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

you'll have to come to terms that the community at large will not always share your personal definitions of "silliness". It is possible that some might extend the definition of "silly" to going around opposing to every single arbcom candidate on the grounds of a belief that "ArbCom must be disbanded". Seriously, the mind boggles. And I say this not as a friend of arbcom. I do not understand your further comments. The essay you are referring to is in userspace. Here, we are talking about a one-liner you have created on top of the userified essay, a couple of days after the mfd closure. If you want to userify WP:DTTR, how about you make the proposal, or submit it to mfd. Disrupting one part of Wikipedia because you have a problem with another part is known as WP:POINT. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside input
I noticed this through the over-dramatic ANI thread. Since the result of the MfD was userfy, I don't see why there needs to be anything but a redirect at this location. Cheers. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the thing was userified voluntarily, before the mfd was closed. I can live with that. If Bstone wants to insist it be moved back to Wikipedia: namespace, I suppose he can suggest this, or make the move unilaterally. The page will then be re-submitted to mfd. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You see, Dbachmann, you have already made up your mind. There is no discussion but rather your way, only. Why are you so disruptive? Bstone (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)